28th October 2008, 06:09 PM
Are we saying that the responsibility of training rests in university degree courses, without formal, on-the-job development by units who later employ graduates? Or more reaslisitcally, that units should rightfully expect graduates to be aware of the process and the skills involved with a basic understanding of field principles but that full training occurs onsite, at the coalface.
It has been said a few times throughout the thread that it is unreasonable for graduates to be skilled in these diverse techniques, and this comes with time, which I agree with. Edinburgh certainly included the vast majority of these items in their undergrad course whether it was Arts or Environmental in the compulsory Archaeological Practice module, but at the time they had a commercial unit attached to the department. Obviously further development was up to the individual.
In real terms it is probably unlikely that all degree courses at all universities would include as full a field skills course as commercial units would ideally like because hardly any graduates go into commercial archaeology and curriculum space is finite. I would be surprised that in one yeargroup if more than 10% (5% in my experience) regularly stayed in commercial work longer than a few months after their degree ends, certainly fewer after a year, decreasing over time. Hopefully someone more informed can clarify this for me.
Obviously time is money in the commercial world, and no one wants to spend a disproportionate amount of time training new employees but it is clearly beneficial and an investment in future projects. But as has also been said many times, the new employees have to be receptive to experience. Most importantly I suspect compassion is lacking in all of this. The competition for short-term contracts on site can lead to horrible back-biting situations usually focussing on relative experience. I've equally seen people with lots of digging time but are prety ropey, and newbies who put everyone else to shame.
Lack of experience does not equal being bad at the job. How often are new people given a chance to develop?
Or is it the number one pathetic excuse why nothing in archaeology changes much..."it's the nature of the job!"
It has been said a few times throughout the thread that it is unreasonable for graduates to be skilled in these diverse techniques, and this comes with time, which I agree with. Edinburgh certainly included the vast majority of these items in their undergrad course whether it was Arts or Environmental in the compulsory Archaeological Practice module, but at the time they had a commercial unit attached to the department. Obviously further development was up to the individual.
In real terms it is probably unlikely that all degree courses at all universities would include as full a field skills course as commercial units would ideally like because hardly any graduates go into commercial archaeology and curriculum space is finite. I would be surprised that in one yeargroup if more than 10% (5% in my experience) regularly stayed in commercial work longer than a few months after their degree ends, certainly fewer after a year, decreasing over time. Hopefully someone more informed can clarify this for me.
Obviously time is money in the commercial world, and no one wants to spend a disproportionate amount of time training new employees but it is clearly beneficial and an investment in future projects. But as has also been said many times, the new employees have to be receptive to experience. Most importantly I suspect compassion is lacking in all of this. The competition for short-term contracts on site can lead to horrible back-biting situations usually focussing on relative experience. I've equally seen people with lots of digging time but are prety ropey, and newbies who put everyone else to shame.
Lack of experience does not equal being bad at the job. How often are new people given a chance to develop?
Or is it the number one pathetic excuse why nothing in archaeology changes much..."it's the nature of the job!"